Pharmacist's religious/moral objection to emergency contraception

[lilly0]

A while ago I went into Boots to buy the MAP. The pharmacist on duty wouldn't prescribe to me for religious reasons but pointed another pharmacy to me no biggy I thought but then I thought about it. Why would a pharmacist object to emergency contraception it isn't an abortion pill they don't seem to mind selling condoms and dispensing the pill ?
Is there any reason not to sell the MAP ?

Jobs I have done I have had to put my personal moral and values aside to support people. Example I couldn’t object to supporting a a paedophile even though I dislike them. If you are doing a job like that you need to serve the people who come to your pharmacy.

I was under the impression that the MAP prevented the implantation of a fertilised egg therefore is not strictly contraceptive according to people who believe life begins at the moment of conception. So I think the pharmacist was within their rights to refer you to somebody else. But I can see it from other points of view. Selling alcohol and so on.

'Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus'

Look at non-UK sites. They all do. It hasn't been 100% proven in UK clinical trials so they aren't claiming it so they don't get sued. But in other countries it has been proven and they will say it.

What the pharmacist did is legally allowed and accepted in the pharmacy industry and within individual pharmacy chains such as Boots.

An individual pharmacist does not have to dispense something they feel morally uncomfortable about, but they should not be rude and they should point out an alternative where the item can be procured.

I would imagine that some or stele owned pharmacists that have moral objections, simply dont stock those products.

I think women have the right to be able to access the MAP and I also think pharmacists have a right to individually choose whether to supply it. Both of those rights can do-exist, because there are plenty of people who are prepared to supply it.

The fertilised not yet implanted egg is "life" for about 1 billion catholics and many others actually. That is why not yet implanted fertilised eggs in a test tube are regarded as life too.

I'd be interested in seeing these clinical trials that proved implantation of a fertilised egg was prevented by taking levonorgestrel.

It's very frequently stated as "fact", but the mechanism has certainly not been demonstrated.

It doesn't matter how many people are able to dispense it when the one time one person goes to the counter and is turned away.

Why doesn't this apply to drug addicts? That's a disapproved lifestyle isn't it?

Why not to drugs that can harm unborn babies knowing people lie?

Why not to condoms?

Why not to drugs containing non halal/kosher animal products?

Why does it only apply to fucking over women by withholding the MAP

In the example given, the rights of the woman and the pharmacist were able to co-exist. The pharmacist was able to not supply a product they have a moral struggle with, plus the woman was able to access the MAP. Here it is possible for both rights to be acknowledged and supported and I think that a tolerant society needs to recognise a variety of views and rights.

It's funny, because we speak of tolerance and being liberal, but actually, lots of people are very intolerant of religious views or morals. They might not be our own, but if we believe people have a right to their beliefs, then we should allow religious beliefs too - unless in reality we are only tolerant of non religious beliefs.

This issue has been worked out so that women can get the MAP. those who don't want to dispense it agree to be clear where it is available or to get another member of staff to do it. They don't prevent access to the product. At the same time, they are allowed to respect their own consciences. It works.

Years ago a GP at my practice wouldn't prescribe the pill for me because she was catholic, I told her I'm also catholic but it made no difference.

No it doesn't work.

Someone already said that in rural areas there may only be the one pharmacy and buses to main tiems few and far between.

And expensive to boot.

Religion is fine for a person to follow for themselves. It's not fine when it negatively impacts other people.

The pharmacist was male , in his 30's i think perhaps a locum as the shop window had "we sell emergency contraception in the corner"
There doesn't seem to be 100 percent concrete proof that the MAP stops implantation.
Its already embarrassing going in and asking , the MAP is time sensitive I appreciate many women don't want to be hanging around waiting for a pharmacist who agrees with the MAP.

Morally speaking (if I was religious) I would have thought providing patient with the MAP to be the lesser of 2 evils if they then had to go have an abortion because you declined them MAP.

When I was young, perhaps 17, I once had to take the MAP due to a split condom. I went to the family planning clinic. About 6 months later I returned to discuss possibly going on the pill for painful periods and fainting when menstrating. The woman assumed I was back for the same thing and huffed and tutted at me. It was so embarrassing that I told her I didn’t want the MAP and left as fast as I could. I went on the pill at 18/19 when I went to university. My periods from then on were bliss.

Had I been refused the MAP at boots, I would probably would have been too embarrassed to try again as pps have said.

I think thats disgusting. If they can't fulfill their job because of their religious beliefs then they shouldn't be doing it. I would imagine a teenage girl would have just left already feeling bad enough and too embarrassed to go and ask somewhere else after probably working up the courage for hours to go in here.

And all because some ignorant person decided that was against their religion. Totally disgusted. Glad you were able to get it from another pharmacy OP.

If you don't believe in eating meat. Don't eat it.
If you don't believe in drinking alcohol. Don't drink it.
If you don't believe in taking the morning after pill. Don't take it.

I don't think other people's beliefs should stop people doing what they want to their own body.
I would never let my beliefs affect others.
It's not always as easy as going to another chemist.

I think this is wrong. The pharmacist is paid to do a job and is providing a service. Therefore they should carry out that role and their religion shouldn't come into it.

B&B owners aren't allowed to turn away gay couples on the basis of their religion so why should a pharmacist be treated differently?

In this society, we have deemed that emergency contraception is ethical and legal.

If the personal ethics of the pharmacist conflict with this, then they should do another job.

If your beliefs provide a barrier to women having their immediate health needs met, then you're not fit for practice, regardless of your other skills.

If you do not have an alternative employee in the same establishment who can step in for you as you stand in moral judgement over women making health decisions for themselves, then step out and find another profession.

The rights of a woman to healthcare should trump the right of a pharmacist to turn her away.

I understand it's embarrassing asking in the first place and awkward being asked to wait for someone else to serve you or go elsewhere. However, these are awkwardneses, and we have to measure them against the rights of the pharmacist which also exist.
People always seem to think there is some kind of disapproval from the pharmacist and tie that in wih their thinking about it all. I don't think they always realise how the pharmacist feels about this issue - that they are being asked to be involved in ending a life. That is how they see it. The woman and other people might not see it like that,mbut that is how they see it.
So I think that occasionally women will have to go through feeling a bit awkward and wait for an alternative pharmacist to come out, or go to another shop. They will still get their MAP. It isn't a case of the pharmacists principles stopping them being able to have the MAP. Here awkwardness is the cost of allowing the pharmacists their right not to prescribe. It isn't a right which is inflicting pregnancy on someone, but a situation where the rights of 2 different people have been weighed and an approach chosen to maximise the overall acceptance of rights.
Women are entitled to access to the MAP. That's law. It should be law. The right doesn't extend to covering all awkwardness and removing it, so that the rights of another to not supply are removed.

In the 90s I had some sympathy for many pharmacists who didn't want to dispense the MAP as when they qualified it wasn't available. I do wonder why younger pharmacists choose to go into the profession though if they are unwilling to dispense emergency contraception or sometimes even other forms of contraception. At the moment they have the right to do that though so there is no point in complaining to the chemist shop about it..

Awkwardness? Oh poor pharmacist.. .having to deal with awkwardness.

Never mind the 15 yr old just date raped and how awkward it is for her

They also have to do extra training to dispense so if they are against it for religious reasons they just won't do the training so aren't qualified to dispense it anyway..

I’ve needed the map twice. Both times, condom split/ came off. Both times taken in the first 24hours and still resulted in pregnancy. Go me.
The first one, they didn’t have in store- or maybe they objected and didn’t like to say, so said they were out of stock. Called to the shop over the road (5min walk) and had pharmacist waiting for me when I arrived and I went straight into consultation room, which I thought was really sensitively handled. Second time - funny enough in boots, they refused to see me in consultation room and did it in front of other customers. I was mortified, the place was packed.
I think having a sign up would be the best option- then you avoid having to go through it again and the embarrassment. It’s not like you can send your other half in to get it for you so you avoid the anxiety etc.

B&B owners aren't allowed to turn away gay couples on the basis of their religion so why should a pharmacist be treated differently?

Pharmacist aren't allowed to discriminate against gay people either on the basis of their religion. Some things are protected by the equality act but others aren't.

That would be because women still aren’t equal, I’m afraid.

Those saying the pharmacists deny access to the MAP are simply wrong. Those saying a moral judgement is being given are wrong.
You are mixing up the emotion of the issue with the reality of what pharmacists are actually doing and not doing.

Pharmacists who don't want to supply make no comment beyond they don't supply the product themselves. They always get another pharmacist or explain clearly where another pharmacist can be found.

The complicated thing is that people seeking the MAP often are emotional about this. It is understandable. They worry they might be pregnant and don't want to be. Many (not all) find this difficult in itself because they don't want to be in this position. They find having to tell someone else that information (the pharmacist) difficult too and embarrassing. Many people in this situation feel they might be judged by others,nwhether they are judged or not, because there is a possibility they are pregnant and don't want to be. Feeling like this, makes going to the pharmacy an emotional and difficult thing to do and even when people are immediately given the MAP they often feel judged.....but it should be recognised, that this is THEIR issue, not a reality that they are being judged. Isn't it simply a fact that such a visit to the pharmacy is difficult and awkward for many people - it's nothing to do with the pharmacist at all.

So we have a difficult and awkward situation for many (not all clearly) but the fact it is difficult and awkward should not mean a pharmacist must supply a product they are not happy to do so, to simply avoid awkwardness. Avoiding awkwardness is not a right, but some people seem to think it is. Measures are in place to minimise awkwardness,mas mentioned above - pharmacists don't pass comment. Clearly explain where an alternative pharmacist is etc etc.

Yes, of course then having to go elsewhere is less convenient and if you already were finding going to the pharmacist awkward to start with, it now feels more awkward. This is a trade off or cost of giving the pharmacists rights too. I think it is a 'cost' that is worth it....because what is a bit of slight awkwardness (not denial of access to MAP or enforced pregnancy as some imply) compared to the right to make a moral choice, which actually isn't impacting on someone else's choice, because they CAN get the MAP and have been told where to get it from.